Jump to content

User talk:Karada/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Reliability engineering - text editor comment

Hello Karada, I appreciate your improvements to the Reliability engineering article. However, I didn't understand your comment about a WYSIWYG text editor. What does that comment mean? Thanks, Wyatts

I was referring to the use of ":*" to indent items in lists: it looks pretty, but it's not uniform with other articles, and we generally prefer simple markup to prettiness. By using the simplest possible markup in articles, it makes them not only more amenable to CSS styling, but also makes Wikipedia easier to read by standardising the appearance of articles. -- Karada 07:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting my userpage. (Weird; I've never run into that guy before.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Karada, I am glad an administrator could find the time to explain the way to tag it in a civil manner since the Wikipedia policy is very long and kind of confusing. I will append my comments to DreamGuys comments like you said. Thanks! --Evmore 12:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Elf

Hi Karada. Would you care to explain to me why you used the rollback button in support of J M Rice at Elf?--Wiglaf 19:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because J M Rice was correct in removing the images as not being covered by fair use. Unfortunately, they seem to have reappeared. Thanks for reminding me to remove them. -- Karada 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The Cate Blanchett picture is faire use, as is explained by the caption.--Wiglaf 06:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If merely citing something in the image caption actually made images qualify as fair use, this would be a get-out clause that would effectively render the fair use rules irrelevant. Since the fair use rules are unlikely to disappear in a puff of smoke, I suspect that this trick will not work. -- Karada 09:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If you argue that an image of an Elf is not relevant on an article on Elf, I do assert that you are wrong. The caption states that she acts as an Elf.--Wiglaf 10:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
An image of an Elf is certainly relevant to an article about elves. However, a copyrighted picture from one of the Lord of the Rings movies is not fair use in this context: it would only be fair use if it was used to illustrate content that is about the movie itself. Now, perhaps if Cate Blanchett actually was an elf, and this was the only extant image of a real elf, you might be able to make a case for fair use here. On the other hand, if you want to use the Blanchett image in the part of the article which is actually about The Lord of the Rings movies, that probably could reasonably be argued to be fair use. (IANAL, etc.) -- Karada 10:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, the vast majority of people who read the article would not, and have not, split hairs like you do. They expect it to be about Elves like those in PJ:s movie, and I argue that the article treats elves in a way that warrants the image. I'd really like to hear what others have to say in the matter, before I buy your argument.--Wiglaf 11:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:203.26.206.130

Hi, I've unblocked this IP since it is a proxy for a pretty widely used dial-up ISP in Australia, and I have heard from one good registered user that was affected. --nixie 10:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I got the same email. Isn't this a proxy account? Zoe 17:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


Curtin University of Technology

Hey, thanks for helping with the reverts there, I wonder if user:WikiNazi is related with user:the awful truth, I don't think they're meatpuppets since the former was interested in vandalizing while the latter was interestd in vanity advocacy, but it's curious that they both vandalized the same small college in Australia. Please let me know if I can assist with any other vandalism tracking efforts. Karmafist 00:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The Scream

Thank you. I made the following assumptions: Since Edvard Munck is a Norwegian artist I assume that Norwegian copyright law is relevant. Munck has not been dead for 70 years, hence his works are protected by copyright in Norway. I also assume that Norway and the United States have signed mutually binding copyright treaties, eg. if one work is protected by copyright in one country, it is protected also in the other country. Without similar treaties, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck cartoons from the 1930s would be public domain in several European countries. Because of this, I don't think it was farfetched to tag the image as "fair use". Thuresson 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How common is prostitution?

Karada, I think you heavily underestimate the percentage of women who have ever worked as a prostitute (I'm talking about your contribution to prostitution). The National Task Force on Prostitution even suggests one percent of the American women has worked as a prostitute once in her lifetime.(stats on www.bayswan.org) If I take for instance the Netherlands, there are an estimated 25.000 prostitutes in the Netherlands (based on research in 1999, van Mens and van der Helm, source). App. 32% of them is Dutch (based on research in 2002 from Van Dijk, source). That should mean there are 0,32*25000=8000 Dutch prostitutes in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a total population of app. 16 million people and half of them is female. That means 0.1% of the Dutch women is a prostitute. If it's true the average career of a prostitute is 5 years, that would mean that 20%(1/5) of those prostitutes has to be replaced every year by new prostitutes. The average lifespan of a woman is 80 years, so 80 years multiplied by 8000*0,20 new prostitutes per year would mean 12800 Dutch women will be or has been a prostitute. 12800(have been/will-be prostitutes)/8000000(number of Dutch women)=1.6% of the female population who has been or will be a prostitute. But.... you want to know how many women have been prostitutes and not how many will be. The average age of a Dutch prostitute is app. 30 years.(source,in Dutch). Let's say, remove those 30 years from the rest of the 80 years a woman lives on average. Then you'll get 1.6% multiplied by (80-30)/80=1 percent!!! Isn't that great!!! And I believe the same thing might be true for the United States. Now, app. 25% of the Dutch men has ever visited a prostitute. That means a more realistic ratio of 25:1 "have-ever-been" ratio between prostitutes and clients, instead of 84:1. I refer to a study which indicates that even many men have ever been paid for sex once in their lifetime(source). Then you'll see a percentage of 1.6 at least!!! And most of them were paid by women!! I don't get it. I believe prostitution is more widespread that most people could ever imagine. (I have to stress though that only (app.) 3 percent of the men in the surveys admitted to ever have visited a prostitute) I have a gut feeling that a more realistic estimate of the "ever-have-been-female-prostitutes" is more like 4 percent of the total female population. But I can't prove it. --Bruno Junqueira 22:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism from your shared IP address

Hi Karada, It is practically impossible for me or for the university to figure out whose responsible for the vandalism until u dont give me the IP address. I login from various computers across the campus.. either from my computer, or from a computer in my dorm's computer lab or from a computer in the library. Pl give me the IP address and Ill see wat I can do about it. Also note that there many computers in Purdue libraries where logging in is not necessary to surf on the internet. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

IP vandal

No, I don't mind a bit - in fact, I was hoping someone would (I'm not an admin, so my blocking threats are a little empty unless I can get an admin's attention!). So thank you, much appreciated! Stephenb (Talk) 10:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fake impersonator account

I've found the problem: the "real" impersonator account has a period at the end: see User:Cool Cat is a fat fat. -- Karada 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for waisting your time :( --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyrillic mojibake

Thanks. What does your converter program run on? Any chance of you sending it to me? Anthony Appleyard 13:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

BULLY

YOU ARE A BULLY. SO IS CURPS.

Hello. Thank you for contacting me. Can you say what this is regarding, please? -- Karada 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
BLOCKING JUST FOR MOVING PAGES AND BLANKING USER PAGES AFTER BLANKING MINE
Ah, so you are User:§. Can you please tell me what you rationale is for those page moves, and why you have ignored other editors' requests to discuss them? I'm not aware of having blanked any user pages, though. -- Karada 04:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've checked: I didn't blank your user page -- you blanked it, and then another admin speedy-deleted it. -- Karada 04:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding §: This user routinely edits anonymously from a DSL DHCP pool in Chicago, and as far as I can tell has never engaged anyone in conversation, ever. But it is also not his style to go after user pages. The comments left above appear to come from a dialup in Los Angeles, so unless § is travelling for the holidays, I suspect you have misidentified the complaining user. Dragons flight 15:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for having done something about §, anyway. Wikipeditor 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Responded to your comments on Talk:War Game. But I have to ask what the big deal is here. I deleted one redlink from a dab page, and explained why. I'm not sure why having the link in there is so important, or why you felt the need to respond with sarcasm. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come across as sarcastic; pedantic, perhaps, but not sarcastic. My point was that to delete red links on the basis of it being policy to do so only makes sense if it actually is policy, which, as careful reading of that sentence from the MoS shows, it isn't. I was concerned that, if you were under a misapprehension that the policy was otherwise, you risked unwittingly removing potentially useful information; one red link is not a big deal, but dozens, or hundreds, if other users copy you, are. Please feel free to delete redlinks if you are sure that they are unencyclopedic; otherwise, would you mind giving others the benefit of the doubt? -- Karada 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I commented it out to avoid that risk (removing potentially useful information). Maybe that's not a great solution; I'm open to criticism. And your point is valid. I'm sorry you feel I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. It just didn't seem to me like an article that was likely to be written. Like I said on the talk page, I might be wrong about that too. I'm not going to revert it if you put it back in, BTW. I wouldn't have even done it a second time if I'd posted on Talk the first time. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not a problem; I always try to assume good faith, and I can see you do, too. Regards, Karada 04:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Glad to hear you feel the same. We hit a lot of the same pages and I know you're a solid editor, which is why I took your comments seriously. Thanks for the feedback. See you around. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio vandal

Great minds think alike, it seems.  :) Thanks for helping out with this guy. - Lucky 6.9 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon edit

user:67.129.121.254 placed this edit on your userpage - Akamad Happy new year! 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize that I don't know how to send messages to individuals, so feel free to move this to its proper place (it has also been added to the discussion page of the stalking and cyberstalking articles) ...

"Karada, I am at a loss to explain why you would delete the information I provided about cyberstalking. The information has been restored with enhancement to flow and readability. I cannot think of a more appropriate and scholarly contribution for this particular article (cyberstalking) than the information I provided about the abuse of Web-based resources (i.e. search engines, domain registrars, Usenet) not only by individual cyberstalkers, but by groups of cyberstalkers whose gang-like activity is made uniquely possible by the characteristics of the Internet (e.g. anonymity, cybersleuthing, and lack of geographic distance makes cooperative networking simple). It's not only verifiable facts, but the facts are also stable over time. The phenomenon I document is an enduring trait of the Internet and not an attempt to call attention to a single stalker or flame war.

For you to designate such a contribution as "kookery" is abusive and unscholarly and turns reality on its head. The term kookery itself is meaningless, serving only an expressive (i.e. valuative) function. All the facts are empirical and verifiable, and none of the facts are presented in an irrational or incomprehensible manner. The reference to a particular news group, the only aspect of the report I consider even remotely disputable, is clearly marked as illustrative, and all readers are aware the group is being used as both (a) an example to give concrete form to cold facts and abstract concepts and (b) a reference (if you examine the group, here is an example of the facts).

I suspect your problem is really not with the merits of the content itself but with the periphera (i.e. tenor, motive, venue). If you have a problem with what you think is my motivation, I do not think it is material. Regardless of what my motives were for writing this piece (and these motives are not endemic to the text), the material is factual and verifiable and it is not offered as opinion. More importantly, this information is socially conscientious, civically responsible, and capable of preventing many cases of cyberstalking.

So please cease and desist your following me around Wikipedia. I am not trying to spam Wikipedia with this content. I think you'll find that if you simply give it its due place (and you can decide whether it should be here in Cyberstalking or in Stalking), that I will stop reviving it. I keep putting it in various places ONLY BECAUSE you have been deleting it and then attempting to pass me off as a spammer or vandal. I think your motives / emotions are more transparent than mine.

Moreover, efforts to improve this content may include qualification, editing, and sidebar discussion, but wholesale deletion and redirection to empty shells is simply extreme, inappropriate, and thus "vandalizing."

I assure you that there really is nothing personal about this; I'm sorry if you see the behaviour of the Wikipedia community as persecution, but it might help to read the policies that apply to Wikipedia articles before posting. I can't really add any more in reply, other than asking you to revisit the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, and to read WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Karada 19:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

"Using a blood donation organization as a proxy STD test is highly irresponsible; if the testing is not 100% perfect, and you're positive, you'll almost certainly (because of pre-test blood pooling, and the very large blood volumes involved) infect one or more unwitting third parties.

Instead, please get tested at your local sexual health clinic. "

People just wanting to make sure are no more likely to have an STD than other first-time blood donors.. I don't see your point: If that kind of carelessness goes on things would happen *anyway* --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that people who take part in high-risk activities are at higher risk than other members of the population. In epidemiology terms, it's assortative mixing among people with high risk tolerance; people who take part in one high-risk activity are more likely to take part in others, including taking part in these activities with multiple partners; and no, you can't trust your partner who tells you "I've never done anything like this before, either". Consider the outbreaks of HIV in the regularly-tested adult movie industry; this in a population that take part in high-risk activities, and yet are all tested monthly. -- Karada 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I guess that makes sense, kinda
I would be interested in reading if you feel like creating articles for "assortative mixing" and "risk tolerance" maybe {{psych-stub}} or {{neuroscience-stub}} --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)
It's also worth noting that there are some bloodborne diseases that we can't yet test for. (Prion diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease comes to mind.) In addition to spreading these diseases to one's blood play partners, one would then potentially infect one or more innocent bystanders each time one donated blood. Most jurisdictions also bar donations from individuals who have recently (in the last 12 months) come in contact with another person's blood. Lying to the nurses when they ask about this stuff could conceivably make you civilly and/or criminally liable for any morbidity or mortality resulting from a tainted blood donation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Karada, I think you miss the point here. Just because certain behavior is inadvisable does not mean Wikipedia should not state that people engage in it (if indeed they do) and describe it. Certainly, the encyclopedia should not ENDORSE it (but then again, neither should it endorse anything else--NPOV and all that), but simply stating that it happens and describing what it is hardly constitutes an endorsement. If we were to remove all content that describes inadvisable behavior, then we would also have to remove Collectivism, Fascism, Socialism, Christianity, Communism, Totalitarianism, Anarchism, Democracy, New England Patriots, Detroit Pistons, and Houston Astros. Kurt Weber 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have evidence (a reputable source) that this is a 'common way' for people to test their disease status? Blood donor clinics in my neck of the woods (Canada) actively discourage the use of blood donation to test for STDs, and will put individuals in contact with (free) sexual health clinics who can do the testing. In most western countries, it's not difficult to have one's blood tested, and in many places such testing is available free of charge—no blood donation required.
I have little doubt that it is possible to locate poorly-educated web forum members who give bad advice like 'get a free blood test at a donor clinic', but I suspect that individuals who have some experience in risky behaviours have learned to do these things through the 'proper' channels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Verifiability is important; it's also not the issue here. Karada did not remove the content on the basis that it is false or unverifiable; he removed it on the basis that it describes conduct that is inadvisable, which is not a valid reason for removing content. Kurt Weber 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I can't provide any information about verifiability as I know nothing about blood fetishism; I simply came across it after reading Selina Kyle's talk page, which was linked from Kelly Martin's RFC. Kurt Weber 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough—perhaps he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving all this to Talk:Blood fetish - hope no one minds but there's a similar discussion going on both at Karada's talk page and here, better to have it in one place methinks --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User subpages

It's never boring around here, eh? Anyway, I saw you'd commented on a deletion:

  • attempt to keep afd-deleted article in user space; user space is not a place to preserve deleted articles

I'm not defending the material here. However as a mere principle, shouldn't user subpages be places to develop, edit, or reform text? (Wikipedia:user pages) Cheers, -Will Beback 07:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Will. There was a recent discussion of this general topic on the mailing list. I see the issues as this:
  • it's generally accepted that attempts to recreate afd'd material can be deleted on sight
  • user space is not intended for articles, other than as a workspace
  • this appeared to me to be a clear example of user space being used solely as an attempt to preserve deleted content, rather than for any other purpose
Regards, -- Karada 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'll read the mailing list archive. BTW, the intent was to encourage the editor to edit down the material into somethng usable, but it turned out to be a wasted effort so I'm just as happy that the attempt was deleted. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Request: Ascending Kleene chain

This Request can be removed. It is no longer a red link in the entry on Kleene: I replaced it by the more important "Kleene fixpoint theorem" and defined the notion in the body there. I don't think it merits a separate entry since readers will always encounter it in the context of the theorem. Lambiam 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty mean of you

Please put them all back! Are you on DSL? MartrtinS 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what kind of diagram could those articles on transexual/transgender topics concievably need? The article intros seem clear and descriptive to me. -- Karada 12:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well shemale and transwoman need some kind of diagram of what they are. Or a picture if it's clear. There's several articles in the category that all blur together like the same exact one with a different name. Are there medical diagrams that would be acceptable and pass the copyright tests? PS: Your talk page is really large, would you please archive the old ones? I do not have a fast connection. Like in the shemale talk page, is Kathoey a shemale or transwoman? And I think either shemale or transwoman said some of those types don't always have the operation, with the maybe shemale is just a term in pornography, so it's like which is which? Hence: Make a clear, scientific, medical diagram or get a good picture to show what the difference is. MartrtinS 12:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not just add an infobox, then? A penis/no penis diagram is not required. A male-to-female TS who has had SRS generally looks female externally, and most users can look up penis (or, for slightly less than half of them, look in their trousers) to see what one of those looks like. -- Karada 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!

Hey thanks for cleaning up the additions I did to the KED article! English isn't exactly my fortae, I'm a science/medicine geek!! Mike (T C) 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

your attacks have been removed from my page, and before making anymore I would consider that I have a long history of constructive NPOV edits, and you'd better make damned sure that you can say the same, before you start slinging personal insults around the way that you are--IworkforNASA 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't. Your first edit was today. -- Karada 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
And since then I've had a very long productive history of NPOV edits--IworkforNASA 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be for very small values of "very", then. -- Karada 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

you clearly have some sort of personal vendetta against me

whatever it is, please just leave me alone--IworkforNASA 02:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nasa, they are trying to bait you - don't fall for it. 66.98.130.224 05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Iworkfornasa

I know he can be...difficult, however, I do not think it was correct to delete a part of his user page because we disagree about what his opinions of us are. He hasn't made a personal attack on us, but only stated his opinion about us. --OrbitOne 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting summaries

Hi Karada, you reverted an article using the edit summary "winding things back to this prior version" [2]. In the future could you say to which revision you're reverting when it's not obvious? Cheers —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-22 00:27Z

I hadn't thought of that -- of course, it's not obvious. I'll try to paste that info into the comment in future. Thanks, -- Karada 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your additions on all of the Grand Lodge Pages. However, List of Masonic Grand Lodges/Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should not be added to the category Grand Lodges page, as it is a notes and scratchpad article, not something appropriate for being directly linked. I do, however, realise that i had originally added the category grand lodge to it at the bottom, so, I understand why you added your category. Again, thanks!--Vidkun 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

from 216.38.176.18

The problem with your statement is that it was Scaife who was harassing me! He called my comments nonsense, which is not the truth. How would you feel if someone insulted you like that? I like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but i feel at times someone needs to fight back against the bullies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.176.18 (talk • contribs)

If you need my help with participating here, you'll first need to let me know what this dispute is about. -- Karada 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be frustrated, but blanking Scaife's user page was an inappropriate response. There are other avenues to deal with this -- you can go to mediation, for instance. Hbackman 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
ok, I'm a big enough person to apologize. I agree that it was inappropriate for me to do that. But Scaife's actions were even more inappropriate, because they were unprovoked. I'm wondering how he can be made to apologize by Wikipedia. He reverted my edits and called them nonsense, but made no good explanations. I don't know what that guy's problem is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.176.18 (talk • contribs)
The problem was that you were making POV additions to articles. I simply reverted them, however your behavior is unwarranted and disruptive. Calling people bullies and liars is a violation of WP:NPA. In the future, when you are frustrated with a revert, contact that person on their talk page instead of engaging in vandalism. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

IAMthatIAM

Hi Karada, if you want to block the above indefinitely because of the name, you'll first have to undo my 12-hour block for disruption, because the shorter block takes precedence. [3] Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. -- Karada 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think IAMthatIAM would also have been blockable under the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Fred Bauder 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Shakina Shergold

Shakina Shergold has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who are you

Who are you to take my things off of wikipedia, the shark is a legitimate dance and you have no idea what you're talking about when you called it nonsense. You know what, you're nonsense how do you like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remotecontrol (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comments, Remotecontrol. Unfortunately, the nature of your other, now deleted, edits caused me to doubt the validity of its contents. If you are serious about writing an article about this dance, please can you demonstrate a) its existence, and b) its notability, by citing verifiable, reputable third-party resources. Please also see WP:OR. -- Karada 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


On 1632 series

two edit conflicts later!

Why not pitch in and help write it, what would you call an entirely new literary mechanism ( see plus an historic collaboration (pending upgrade, probably complete soon)? Usual? Common? GMAB! It's easy to be a critic, put your time where your mouth is. re: {{advert}} See the talk:1632 series and some of the newer more polished accounts. Or better yet, get involved, right now I'm a one man band. OTOH, I've put up nearly 800 non-trivial mostly expansion edits in the last two weeks, so I'm not going to apologize. More than half were elsewhere than this series, on my normal patrols, so it advances as I can get the spare time.

Best regards, FrankB 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Christ! You didn't even bother to document your objections.

I didn't think I needed to; I thought the comment should have been self-explanatory. Fabartus, this is what I meant by reading like an advertisement: unfortunately, the following, taken from the article, reads like a publisher's blurb. Please read NPOV and WP:NOT, particularly the part about advocacy.
Quote:
1632 the lead novel in the complex series now numbering ten works in less than five years is a thought provoking, educational, and extremely successful upbeat science fiction alternate history novel originally available only as a paperback written by Eric Flint that has spawned worldwide interest and an almost cult-like following in less than four years. While initially not a best seller, it has far eclisped many such works in sustained sales as it continues in print and sales. Originally intended to be a single story, the novel is now the first of an open-ended series wherein there are at least five books under advanced contract beyond the seven books already published in print media (over half available in pricey hard cover editions), plus an additional three related ebooks that are likely to follow later in print, and the popularity of the series continues to grow by word of mouth. It is likely that the seven book series is establishing a new publishing record for sales and growth as is inferable from the simply astonishing rate of progression and development in the short time since the first book was released in November of 2000— seven books in print in five (four) years or less would be remarkable for half as many releases.
This explosive rate of growth is likely fueled by two extraordinary factors:
  1. Alternate history novels set in the past do not read like hard science fiction, but instead share settings with more in common to classics and mainline novels, thus appeal to a wider readership.
  2. Concieved as a stand-alone novel published about the same time Baen Books launched an author to fan forum (Baen's Bar), the buzz thereon among Sci-Fi fans, quickly lead to discussions of likely subsequent events. These in turn removed the burden upon Flint to research the likely outcome and limiting circumstances within the timeframe. This in turn lead to the author to invite other authors to 'play in his mileau', and most unusually, to help define it; The initial result is the novel 1633 co-written with best selling author David Weber and the anthology Ring of Fire of which all material within was written in the same time period and modified to be consistant across all the storylines within both. Thus each helped shape the other and matured the early development of the mileau.
End of quoted text.
An article on these books is perfectly at home in Wikipedia; however, an article phrased as advocacy is not. I understand that the contributors to this article are enthusiasts for these books, which is fine, but please read the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV for how to resolve these problems and help your article fit Wikipedia's style rules, and, in particular, Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
-- Karada 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Think User:Fabartus/1632series rework this (incomplete) version was overcoming that. When the text flows, I always give it a few days to settle before going back to edit. Any template that hits a reader in the face should be explained in the talk. Inparticular POV/NPOV allegations.
FrankB 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Forgot this one too: 1632 editorial board; point is these are early days. This series was wholely neglected and kids working went off to work honorverse articles. FrankB 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are in the process of revising the article to comply with the NPOV policy, that's fine by me. Let me know how you get on. Regards, -- Karada 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to please, just have another mess to tidy up before 1632 as my browser crashed with 6-7 unsaved large expansion edits (Grok Stacked edits? — check links from preview, see a problem, edit that, check something from that fork, ..., My REAL edit total would be much higher if I weren't so stubborn on minimizing saves. I'm trying to moderate that.) Not the first time I've lost hours of edits due to an arguement with the browsers. Sigh! I've got to finish getting dinner together. It's 9:18! Another wasted WikiHour! FrankB 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Please add a The destruction of the European Jews redirect for The Destruction of the European Jews. I've deleted the thing like five times now. Sheesh! TIA. El_C 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Which thing have you deleted five times? -- Karada 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That redirect, because the edit (correcting the orig. misspelling) wasn't registering for some reason (I knew it wasn't my cache because it wasn't linking anywhere). I have no idea what happned there, but it definitely was getting a bit much. Thank you for fixing it! El_C 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Samois

Thanks for your contribution to the Samois article. I was wondering about the addition of links the "Lesbian Sex Mafia" and "Briar Rose". I've read in Wikipedia Manual of Style that there's a presumption against creating links, if those links are merely empty redlinks. The exception is when you intend to soon provide articles for those links. I was wondering if you were planning on doing this - otherwise, I was going to unlink those two phrases. Peter G Werner 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My understading is that that principle only applies to relative trivia: these organizations seem to me to be independently notable because of their place in the cultural history of the S/M subculture and its relationships to the feminist and lesbian movements. Significant topics should always be safe to make redlinks to: it's the way Wikipedia grows. -- Karada 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the hyper-encryption

I know diddly-do-squat about it.
brainybassist

Hey, the stuff you added, did you have previous knowledge of it?
Only what I read in the press at the time it was in the news: but I then downloaded, and then read, some bits of the papers cited: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ and Google Scholar are your friends. -- Karada 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminder Suggestion

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
Comment Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

HOX9

The article HOX9 that you created back in late December 2004, has been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HOX9). Do you have any references that can be added or where was the information referenced from? I have had a look an can not find any, but genetics is not my strong point. Thank you.--blue520 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Omura/BDORT Entry Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks, for my part, for your efforts on the Omura/BDORT entry. Fucyfre 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bounds green!

Thanks!

I am just going to reduce the size slightly.

Sorry about that - if I ever knew how to do it, I have forgotten!! :)

82.45.248.177 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude - you beat me to it - fabulous - thanks! 82.45.248.177 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tokachu

You just deleted this page, with the summary (removed HTML-commented goatse ASCII-art image: don't do that). Since it is a userpage, and the user in question added it, I see no reason to delete the page. Could you explain your deletion please? Thanks, Prodego talk 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a breach of WP:CIVIL. I've now blanked the page, and sprotected it. -- Karada 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that isn't a CSD, so wouldn't that need to go through MfD? Prodego talk 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
User page freedom does not override basic Wikipedia norms. It's a breach of WP:CIVIL: hosting ASCII-art goatse images on your userpage to surprise people attempting to edit or review the page does not further the goals of the encyclopedia. I've now blanked the page, and sprotected it. Since all the previous revisions of the page had already been deleted, I had no problem deleting it, as I would any page that consisted of only a single concealed HTML comment containing ASCII-art shock images, and zero visible content. Come to think of it, {db-blanked}, "blanked by creator" (CSD G7 and CSD A1) probably applies here.
If you want to, you can put it up for undeletion. -- Karada 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes probably (not A1 but G7), and I do agree that it is offensive. If everyone followed the policy wikipedia would be ideal. Prodego talk 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Hey, thanks for semi-protecting the page. Could you also check out the situation at Romanians? (same user) Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

EnthusiastFRANCE sockpuppets

EF is now using sockpuppets to evade the block. SammyandScoubidou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could you semi-protect my user and talk pages? Paul Cyr 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Got another one: SamuelReichmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't someone with CheckUser abilities block the IP address? Paul Cyr 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Embraer aircraft

Hi, Any ideas how to get an admin to move/rename the categories for me? As im updating the links in the pages

Reedy Boy 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Speedy_renaming -- Karada 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Email

Could you enable your email? User:Flameviper12 wants to protest his block. He's currently emailing me and I'm not prepared to unblock him myself or advocate on his behalf. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, please see [4] for the reason for Flameviper12's indefblock. In particular, edit comments like
"O, I dunno...just imitating the inimitable style of my dear pal Willy. Wonder how long it'll take for me to be banninated. Anyway, I just realized I could move pages...it took AGES to move a page before now...so happy with my newfound power. I must abuse..."
do not inspire confidence in Flameviper12's willingness to be a good-faith editor. Note that this page-move cascade started by moving an article-space page (Goth cartooning), and occurred after Flameviper12 had been unblocked from two previous indefblocks by promising not to be a vandal any more. (See [5] for block log.) I can't see how Flameviper can legitimately complain about this: this comment shows that he clearly knew at the time that being "banninated" again was a likely consequence of misbehavior. -- Karada 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I fully endorse his indefinite block. I was a hair's breadth away from reblocking as soon as I unblocked him and he carried on being stupid, but didn't have enough cause. But it would still be a good idea to enable your email so blocked users can contact you -though if you're being spammed with password requests or have some other good reason for not enabling it, I apologise. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Orphaned fair use image (Image:J-tieupmaki-p.jpg)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:J-tieupmaki-p.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cubing the cube

You added a link to Cubing the cube to the article Squaring the square. As far as I can tell, the only useful information about the CTC problem is that it has apparently been proven to be impossible. [6] Do you have other information? - dcljr 21:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may be proven impossible, but it's still an interesting problem, and its relationship to the solved problem of squaring the square, and the impossibility proof, would still I think, make for an interesting aritcle. -- Karada 21:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the argument that it is impossible in a non-trivial way is not so deep. Charles Matthews 18:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

S. Chowla is presumably Sarvadaman Chowla? -- Karada 21:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to the Gardner Index [7] There appear to be references to cubing the cube in Martin Gardner's The Second Scientific American Book of Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions and Sixth Book of Mathematical Games from Scientific American. Can anybody dig them out? -- Karada 22:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gardner gives an intuitively very easy proof of its impossibility. Seems to be due to Cedric Smith.--Brownlee 10:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of mentioning this in the article? -- Karada 12:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done

I'm very impressed by your editing, especially on bondage rope harness. I do hope you'll activate e-mailing and contact me sometime.--Taxwoman 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To second that, please enable your email. All admins involved in blocking users should have an email address enabled so that they can be contacted by blockees. Again, if you've turned it off for a legimitate reason, I apologise - but I would like to know if that's the case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NRA?

Why did you revert my edit about Michael Moore's criticisms of the NRA? He is a notable NRA critic and Bowling for Columbine is notable for it's stance against the NRA. 217.33.207.195 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose to delete Hierarchy (mathematics)

I put a prod on Hierarchy (mathematics). I see you created it, but haven't changed it in 6 months. I went there to fix the expert tag you put on the page, but although the term hierarchy is used (for example, arithmetical hierarchy), there is no generally known definition of an abstract hierarchy (distinct from just the notion of partial order) that I have ever seen. CMummert 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Death March

Hello. Some two years ago, you asked a question on the talk page of Death March. I answered you there and promised to repeat it on you talk page, so that you could not miss it ;-) You asked: could we say that Napoleon's retreat from Moscow was a death march? That is to say, is the factor that make a march a death march that it is intended to kill those marching, or that they actully do die?

My answer: I think the factor is the intended killing to make it "Death March". But, in colloquial language, I would call the retreat a Death March. That wouldn't be correct, but it would give an instant image. Hope I could help you :-) --DocBrown 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Croker-Poole to be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan

It has been suggested that the Sarah Croker-Poole article be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan. As an editor of the article, you are invited to discuss. -- Aylahs (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Both are about the same person, so there only needs to be one article. -- Karada 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services

Please see Talk:Religion_in_Australia#interfaith_respect, Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau. This is not my page nor are any of it's materials mine. It is a government publication and quite rare in its multi-faith qualities. I happened upon the topic by doing research on oath-taking practicalities and religions and found this document. I and others think it deserves an article.--Smkolins 13:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not free content, so we can't use it. Please see the Wikipedia:Copyright policy. -- Karada 13:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Care to review the replacement which used little of the original content? [8]--Smkolins 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Care to reverse the edits following getting rid of the original article? For example Religion in Australia?--Smkolins 15:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Metal Project

If you are interested in joining a potential Project Wiki Christian Metal project go here to sign up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Christian_Metal --E tac 07:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence

I noticed that you were vocal in debates about the race and intelligence articles earlier. We need your help right now. We're coming very close to revising this article to be something like neutral and only one user is standing in the way! What we need now is an overwhelming show of support from all of the people over the past few years who have complained and criticized this article. We're going to put everything in historical context, so that research some regard as "scientific racism" can't be presented as pure, unquestioned, unbiased science. This will give readers the chance to make up their mind with the appropriate context. Please stop by the talk page and read the section on "moving forward" I hope that you choose to be a part of this.

I know it may bee intimidating and time consuming to sift through all of the warning and banter on this talk page, but I think it is worth the effort. Hope to hear from you! --futurebird 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice

I'll spare you the template... I've nominated an article you wrote for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Matisse. Maybe you would like to comment. Best, Sandstein 11:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

I have noticed that many people have a list of tags with images saying which things they like and what they are etc. Is there a page with all of those codes on? I'd like to add some to my own user page.

Thanks, Tom 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They're called userboxes. However, you might want to reconsider whether you want to use them; they are not universally loved among editors. -- Karada 10:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

framing merge proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtual serial port

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Virtual serial port, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mugunth 09:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect looks fine to me. -- Karada 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Solutions provider

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Solutions provider, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not claiming you are responsible for that article, but I'm notifying named editors who have any semi-major history with the article; much of the text seems to be the work of IP addresses and the history is quite messy. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, marking this article as {{prod}} seems fine to me. -- Karada 09:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop!

There is no article linking to natural topology, and this is not a term with a prescribed meaning in most cases. Please stop linking every occurrence of "natural topology" in sight! I'm busily trying to revert your edits. Silly rabbit 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your query: In most cases, the term is being used informally. Whenever there is a possible ambiguity, a definition is provided. Mathematicians generally use the word "natural" in this way, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything that can be neatly encapsulated in a mathematical definition. My reason for trying to get you to stop is that, in a formal context, natural does have a very precise meaning in terms of natural transformations. This is not, however, what is generally meant my the term in an informal context.
Now perhaps I was overly hasty in reverting your edits, but it seemed peculiar to be linking a bunch of articles en masse to a non-existant page. I'm trying to initiate a discussion about this over at WP:WPM. One possibility is that someone could write a disambiguation on the uses of the word natural in mathematics. This is inevitably going to be unsatisfactory as a mathematical definition. And my feeling is that if a definition is already given in the article, then linking to natural (mathematics) (or whatever) should be avoided. Silly rabbit 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"Natural topology" is clearly, at the very least, a mathematical jargon term, like "up to", even if it does not have a precise formal meaning. If we can't explain what we mean by this, we are doing our readers a disservice.
The problem is that "natural topology" is used, but nowhere defined, throughout many mathematical articles, and is indeed used in ways specific enough to be able to write papers with titles such as "There is no natural topology on duals of locally convex spaces". Clearly, "natural topology" must mean something in this context, or the paper wouldn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal: but what? Saying "it's informal" is like saying "it's a secret, we can't tell you", or "we're handwaving here, please ignore this bit".
My best guess is that "natural" in this context means something like "induced by the partial order(s) used in the construction of the structure". Is this correct? -- Karada 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree to some extent with your argument that jargon should be explained. However, I think that the damage inflicted by blanket linking of a jargon term T to the jargon article J explaining it, regardless of whether the meaning of T in an article X is the same, subtly different, completely different from its explanation in J, or whether X would be much improved by rewording and eliminating T altogether, is FAR GREATER! The only sensible way to assure that articles perform their task of explaining things to the reader both correctly and clearly is to manually go over them and edit for accuracy and clarity. Automated shortcuts will likely fail helping the readers and add extra difficulty to subsequent editors. Re your handwaving argument: some handwaving is useful, as spelling things out in excruciating detail does not necessarily increase understanding. Also, an encyclopaedia is not a textbook, some things have to be stated lucidly and accepted at faith. And the last remark, if you yourself are not sure what a term means (since you ask above), why do you expect to be able to help the reader with your edit? Arcfrk 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
By providing a hook that will enable those who do know to start the process of explaining it in a way that can be understood by others. -- Karada 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unintended Knock? Please explain...

Dear Karada, I was just wondering why you reverted, without explanation, my link to Wiktionary knock-on effect from the See-Also section of Unintended consequence: [your change 2 July] which cancels [my change 10 May]

I found the term used multiple times in the (slightly British) Economist magazine and it took a while to track down it's meaning. Do you think it's too British? Is the meaning off? I thought it was a clear and interesting sub-concept of Unintended Consequence. Why don't you think so? Bob Stein - VisiBone 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd Bit

Thanks for reverting that strange vandal comment on my user page. :) -WarthogDemon 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks on non-Latin usernames

Could I please get you to remove the blocks you placed on the non-Latin usernames recently. They were all created by administrators and are permitted per WP:U#Non-Latin usernames, and they are not being absuively used. Cheers, Daniel 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Latin usernames are fine, as per policy. However, these are symbols, not names. For example, ♨ is not a name in any language. -- Karada 07:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Was there any real need to block them given it was acting as a test? Honestly, we're all administrators, and we're not going to do oh-great harm with these accounts. Could you at least not block any more - we can handle that ourselves, as a fellow administrator to yourself? Daniel 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to unblock them if necessary, but do you really want to create a precedent where administrators have special privileges to do silly things which other users would not be permitted to do? They were test usernames, they got blocked, the system is working as intended, with no harm to any of the users who created the accounts. -- Karada 07:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't want that. I'm going to unblock one account which was being used for a harmless test, but I appreciate the message you're sending and will agree with the rest of them. Daniel 07:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine by me. -- Karada 07:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Daniel 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

R&I

Thanks for your edit of the lead section at R&I. More help in pruning that article would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Username block of User:Dfafdsfdsfdsf

Hi Karada, you got in just ahead of me on this one. Are you going to drop a note explaining the block on the user's talk page? Cheers, Deiz talk 09:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. -- Karada 09:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sterling Simms

Can you explain me why you deleted my article about Sterling Simms? Nothing of the paige was copied and my source is included. Can you tell me what to fix, to let this page stay??? It cost me a lot of work so please explain... Thank you. regards JB.

The article version in question was deleted by User:Gilliam, after I flagged it as a copyright problem. The version I flagged for deletion [9] was almost entirely a copy of a 900 word text which can also be found at [10] and [11]. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. -- Karada 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stubs on Thames locks

Hi Karada - good to see a few new stubs appearing on English locks. A note though, if you're planning to make any more: There are now separate geo-stub templates for each English county (all of the form CountyName-geo-stub), so using them rather than UK-geo-stub saves a little work further downstream (if you'll pardon the pun). If you could use them, it'd be a big help! Cheers - and keep up the good work! Grutness...wha? 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did this for the ones I could find details for at the time, but didn't have time to finish the job: thanks for fixing the others. -- Karada 06:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The opera corpus

Greetings from the Opera Project. This is to explain why I've had to revert your edit to The opera corpus. This article has been known under this title since its inception and it is linked to many pages. It is a key article from the point of view of the development of the Opera Project. The title is intentionally unique and unambiguous in order to distinguish it from other lists of operas. I'd be grateful if you could also not change the names of other opera pages. If you want to discuss this you can of course post to the Opera Project talk page etc. Best regards. -- Kleinzach 03:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Crematogaster

Um... [12]: why? Was it really worth making an edit just to make an article ever so slightly more ugly? Even if you think it's an improvement, such staggeringly minor edits should be avoided. --Stemonitis 08:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency. Consistent source formatting makes it easier to make articles prettier after the fact. Eventually, someone will correct the template -- which is the real source of the layout problem -- and all the articles containing it will get prettier, providing their source is consistently formatted according to Wikipedia's standard style. Multiply by tens of thousands of edits to tens of thousands of articles, and you end up with a consistently formatted, attractive encyclopedia. -- Karada 08:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Consistency with what? All other halfway pleasant–looking stubs have a gap before the stub tag provided by a carriage return. Anyway, that's not the point. Removing or adding a single carriage return alone is never a good edit. In future, please either make more substantive edits to an article or leave it alone. --Stemonitis 08:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bogus co-ordinates

Hi Karada! You replaced a lot of X, Y and Z coords that I put into new articles with the comment "remove bogus coords"....they were not so much bogus as anti-bogus!! I put in the X, Y, Z to indicate that I didn't know the coords and they needed fixing. Thanks for the fixes. Regards (Sarah777 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Yes smarty pants I've just changed it before I got your message!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Haaaa!!! It was meant in the friendliest way possible!!!! Nearly reaching the two million mark we really ought to have articles on all these german and french places -info boxes and details can be added later Thanks all the best amigo ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal at it again

ust thought I'd let you know about Cdmvks (talk · contribs) who is active again, leaving a false block notice on a talk page ( [13] ), and changing his talk page/user page back to the indef notice. Sebi [talk] 07:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Off to the Races (Charlie's Angels)

You've just listed this particular article for deletion without giving any rationale what so ever. I've categorized the article under invididual "Film Scenes." I rather prefer you suggest this being merged with the Charlie's Angels (film) page rather than delete it altogether. Besides, there are numerous references/sources for the article itself. TMC1982 1:32 a.m., 4 September (UTC)

I absolutely don't consider any nomination for an article's deletion valid unless the one who's nomineeing in the first place gives a solid explination behind his or her reasoning. You my friend, quite frankly, haven't done that. You from my perspective just randomly tagged something that you don't belief is worth of any merit. TMC1982 1:41 a.m., 4 September (UTC)

I've suggested merging as one possible way to resolve this in the AfD itself. Please add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off to the Races (Charlie's Angels), if you'd like to see this article kept. -- Karada 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karada/Archive_1&oldid=1246577637"